RE: All good things come to an end in 2035
Discussion
Kipsrs said:
Haven’t had chance to read all of the comments but, correct me if I’m wrong we’re heading towards nuclear fission being the preferred method of obtaining electricity to fuel the batteries of the future cars, yes? - rather than hydro, solar or wind power - all clean and sustainable?
Also correct me if I’m wrong but each rod that is irradiated has a half life of 250,000 years, yes?
Also correct me if I’m wrong but we’re struggling to find places to store the spent rods, yes?
So, with this in mind are we now going to pollute the earths crust and water tables with what I see, as an incredibly ‘dirty’ fuel!
Is a nuclear power station really as clean as it’s being sold to us as?
I believe the way the internal combustion engine is getting cleaner and cleaner and there are possibly other fuels that can be exploited rather than electricity produced by a fuel that is and can be (Chernobyl, Fukushima!) far more polluting and incredibly dangerous than fossil fuels.
So, in one hundred years when we don’t have any storage space for spent batteries and radioactive rods where then?
Don’t get me wrong I think it’s admirable that governments are thinking of the now and a quick fix to the issues created by exhaust gasses but, that’s really not the bigger story is it voters?
And for us in the UK where on earth is the revenue from the tax on fossil fuel going to be raped from? come 2035? - Electricity?
I’ll stop ranting now, I just hate electricity created from nuclear fission as much as some people hate fossil fuels!
Corrections incomming:Also correct me if I’m wrong but each rod that is irradiated has a half life of 250,000 years, yes?
Also correct me if I’m wrong but we’re struggling to find places to store the spent rods, yes?
So, with this in mind are we now going to pollute the earths crust and water tables with what I see, as an incredibly ‘dirty’ fuel!
Is a nuclear power station really as clean as it’s being sold to us as?
I believe the way the internal combustion engine is getting cleaner and cleaner and there are possibly other fuels that can be exploited rather than electricity produced by a fuel that is and can be (Chernobyl, Fukushima!) far more polluting and incredibly dangerous than fossil fuels.
So, in one hundred years when we don’t have any storage space for spent batteries and radioactive rods where then?
Don’t get me wrong I think it’s admirable that governments are thinking of the now and a quick fix to the issues created by exhaust gasses but, that’s really not the bigger story is it voters?
And for us in the UK where on earth is the revenue from the tax on fossil fuel going to be raped from? come 2035? - Electricity?
I’ll stop ranting now, I just hate electricity created from nuclear fission as much as some people hate fossil fuels!
1) Used nuclear fuel is not dangerous for 250,000 years. Everything is radioactive. the more radioactive it is (the more it spontaneously releases neutrons) the shorter the time period over which that release occurs. The highest radioactive elements are "gone" in a matter of hours and days, the less reactive ones in years, or thousands of years. Realisticially, after a few hundred years, even the worst case spent fuel is pretty safe, emitting radiation at levels only a tiny amount above background values.
2) there is plenty of space to store spent fuel, and irradiated reactor components. The total world amount of nuclear waste could be stored in a single old mine. The problem is that the "not in my backyard" effect is strong. People are happy to take the benefits of nuclear generation (lots of reliable electricity) but generally, due to a lack of understanding (lol) don't want any "nuclear waste" stored anywhere near them because "it's radio-active init"
3) We are already "polluting the earths crusts" with petrol chemical polution, and our atmosphere with cabon emissions. the (low) risk of nuclear pollution is actually both minimal and low level. The petrol chemical industry has killed far more people, polluted more of our planet than anything else. Even renewables are worse in terms of deaths per kWh of electricity due to things like dam bursts...
"huge" nuclear disasters like Chernobyl, despite killing people (the exact number is argued, but direct and indirect deaths are far, far far lower than those as a result of petrochemical energy extraction, refinement and transportation, which kills tens of thousands of people yearly.
The reason we probably won't see a massive investment in nuclear fission generation is simply because renewables have a better return on investment and not because nuclear is inherently dangerous or polluting (it isn't)
I’ll just let things roll and see what happens...
Tesla arguably the most successful electric car company burns through investor cash and now has made a smidgen or profit by selling carbon credits to other manufacturers.
Other manufacturers are shelling out loads in development, buying credits off green firms like Tesla and fines to governments.
Something will give eventually.... companies will always make fun stuff to drive... or I’ll just keep the old stuff.
Tesla arguably the most successful electric car company burns through investor cash and now has made a smidgen or profit by selling carbon credits to other manufacturers.
Other manufacturers are shelling out loads in development, buying credits off green firms like Tesla and fines to governments.
Something will give eventually.... companies will always make fun stuff to drive... or I’ll just keep the old stuff.
WJNB said:
With luck I'll be dead by then.
You know what?I’ve almost had the same thought.
Seriously.
I’m 57. So in 2035 I’ll be 72.
Realistic driving years afterwards 10-12.
Buy a good quality new ICE car at the last opportunity maybe even 2 and mothball one just in case.
Sad state of affairs isn’t it....,
k it. Enjoy it when you can and when it's all over, look back at the memories.lotuslover69 said:
...
think the biggest issue here is America and correct me if i am wrong but all Oil traes are done in US Dollars meaning the USA gets a %cut of all Oil trades due to exchange rates. ...
Whilst most oil is traded in USD the US does not get a cut, this is nonsense. There is no mechanism for the US to take a cut out of any exchange rate deal; most USD aren't even traded in the US.think the biggest issue here is America and correct me if i am wrong but all Oil traes are done in US Dollars meaning the USA gets a %cut of all Oil trades due to exchange rates. ...
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 31st July 23:17
BEV running on for X years beyond the ICE equivalent is a nonsense. Yes, the Powertrain might be ok but the rest of the car is just as susceptible to wear, the elements and general deterioration.
Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
fatbutt said:
A quick whit to be sure but no reply so fast could have taken the time to appreciate the value of an Orchestra against a synthesiser.
I know in my heart that if we wish to populate the planet so densely and evolve as a species we must embrace something that can convert energy into movement with a 90% efficiency over a 30% efficiency. I know to finance this revolution it will take early adopters, but rushing it will cause more harm than good to the environment and that's great for me because I believe it's hard to feel passionate or soulful about a gearless, silent driving experience with electronic limiters and force feedback steering.
Call me a rebel but I'll take my oily, manual, musical and engaging motorcars requiring interaction and responsibility until the bitter end
Edinburger said:
We also need manufacturers to get the finger out and start selling quality electric cars at realistic prices.
Not to mention that electric motorbikes appear miles behind electric cars. And, currently, electric bikes are less environmentally friendly than petrol bikes.MCN said:
While an electric bike emits nothing from its nonexistent tailpipe, that’s just a small part of a vehicle’s whole-life emissions cycle. Add complexities like how electricity is produced and what is emitted during manufacturing and the picture is far murkier.
The hidden emissions
Although motorcycle-specific data is hard to come by, there’s a bank of info on electric cars that suggests electric bikes might not have the advantage you’d expect.
In 2018 the European Environment Agency compiled a report – Electric vehicles from life cycle and economy perspectives – which gives insight into the issues. Most importantly, it concluded that BEVs (battery electric vehicles) emitted 1.3 to two times as much greenhouse gas (GHG) during the production process as petrol equivalents.
The report said: "GHG emissions from raw material and production LCA [life cycle assessment] phases are typically higher for a BEV than for its ICEV equivalent. This is related to the energy requirements for raw material extraction and processing as well as producing the batteries."
Warming the planet
With the electric vehicles considered for the report, the batteries alone accounted for around 40% of the greenhouse emissions in the production stage. On bikes, that percentage is likely to be higher as there’s simply less raw material in a motorcycle, making the battery a more significant chunk of the total.
According to figures in the EEA report, the batteries accounted for between 16% and 26% of cars’ total weights, while on electric bikes the batteries account for perhaps twice that much. For instance, Harley-Davidson’s LiveWire has a total weight 249kg, of which the battery is 113kg. That’s 45% of the whole bike.
Once production is finished electric vehicles don’t emit greenhouse gasses directly, but there are still emissions from electricity production. It varies from one place to another – in nuclear and hydro-electric-powered Sweden, electrics are estimated to emit the equivalent of 9g/km of CO2 while in Latvia, where electricity comes mainly from coal, it was 234g/km.
A study published in the journal Nature Sustainability found that even when electricity comes from poor sources, they do break even after a long time on the road. Large electric cars typically start to emit less than their petrol equivalents after around 44,000km.
The hidden emissions
Although motorcycle-specific data is hard to come by, there’s a bank of info on electric cars that suggests electric bikes might not have the advantage you’d expect.
In 2018 the European Environment Agency compiled a report – Electric vehicles from life cycle and economy perspectives – which gives insight into the issues. Most importantly, it concluded that BEVs (battery electric vehicles) emitted 1.3 to two times as much greenhouse gas (GHG) during the production process as petrol equivalents.
The report said: "GHG emissions from raw material and production LCA [life cycle assessment] phases are typically higher for a BEV than for its ICEV equivalent. This is related to the energy requirements for raw material extraction and processing as well as producing the batteries."
Warming the planet
With the electric vehicles considered for the report, the batteries alone accounted for around 40% of the greenhouse emissions in the production stage. On bikes, that percentage is likely to be higher as there’s simply less raw material in a motorcycle, making the battery a more significant chunk of the total.
According to figures in the EEA report, the batteries accounted for between 16% and 26% of cars’ total weights, while on electric bikes the batteries account for perhaps twice that much. For instance, Harley-Davidson’s LiveWire has a total weight 249kg, of which the battery is 113kg. That’s 45% of the whole bike.
Once production is finished electric vehicles don’t emit greenhouse gasses directly, but there are still emissions from electricity production. It varies from one place to another – in nuclear and hydro-electric-powered Sweden, electrics are estimated to emit the equivalent of 9g/km of CO2 while in Latvia, where electricity comes mainly from coal, it was 234g/km.
A study published in the journal Nature Sustainability found that even when electricity comes from poor sources, they do break even after a long time on the road. Large electric cars typically start to emit less than their petrol equivalents after around 44,000km.
fblm said:
lotuslover69 said:
...
think the biggest issue here is America and correct me if i am wrong but all Oil traes are done in US Dollars meaning the USA gets a %cut of all Oil trades due to exchange rates. ...
Whilst most oil is traded in USD the US does not get a cut, this is nonsense. There is no mechanism for the US to take a cut out of any exchange rate deal; most USD aren't even traded in the US.think the biggest issue here is America and correct me if i am wrong but all Oil traes are done in US Dollars meaning the USA gets a %cut of all Oil trades due to exchange rates. ...
Edited by fblm on Friday 31st July 23:17
Julian Thompson said:
BEV running on for X years beyond the ICE equivalent is a nonsense. Yes, the Powertrain might be ok but the rest of the car is just as susceptible to wear, the elements and general deterioration.
Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
What’s more likely is if the robotaxi works it will do a lot more miles for the same age therefore reducing the cost per mile.Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
Julian Thompson said:
BEV running on for X years beyond the ICE equivalent is a nonsense. Yes, the Powertrain might be ok but the rest of the car is just as susceptible to wear, the elements and general deterioration.
Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
And yet the battery (or cells) may well be reused for grid or domestic storage.Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
Niffty951 said:
Call me a rebel but I'll take my oily, manual, musical and engaging motorcars requiring interaction and responsibility until the bitter end
Delightful a soundtrack as it was, your link to the 250 GTO doesn't really change the impending obsolescence of the rather more mundane vehicles on my driveway. They are not Ferraris. As commodity items, they have absolutely no compelling features or emotive connection that would entice me to choose them over an equivalent BEV - except, at present, range & price.I will concede I do rather like the engine note of my motorbikes - but it is not the main reason I ride them. It is more a pleasant soundtrack on top of the main event, which is the exploitation of physics for fun. If the en-masse uptake of cleaner, cheaper, electric vehicles safeguards my continued enjoyment of that thrill ride well into the future, then as before, bring it on.
Portrait said:
Are they going to give everyone a drive to charge their car or am I just going to be tripping over cables for the rest of time.
No because through your council tax you’ll contribute to the cost of getting induction loops put into the road in urban areas or charging points into every lamppost.The reason non-luddites will be happy to do this is because the convenience of having a fully ‘topped up’ car each morning coupled with zero emissions in a vehicle that, by 2028, will have a range far in excess of the biggest fossil fuel tanks; far outweighs the pleasure of driving an ICE on congested roads.
Julian Thompson said:
BEV running on for X years beyond the ICE equivalent is a nonsense. Yes, the Powertrain might be ok but the rest of the car is just as susceptible to wear, the elements and general deterioration.
Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
Everyone should wake up to the fact that traditional ICE car manufacturers have been doing this for years. They make the running of older cars economically unviable by making exclusive parts that are excessively priced.Fifteen year old Tesla’s will be headed for scrap just exactly the same as XYZ car now - and most of them won’t have done moon miles they’ll just need suspension, some electrical bits, a few snapped bits of trim, a bit of a rust fix and - sod it it’s only worth X let’s scrap it...
Has anyone noticed the massive decline in the availability of ‘pattern’ parts to keep older cars on the road?
The car manufacturers are trying to close the loop on car ownership by having control over every car they produce from cradle to grave.
Phase 1: initial profit from the sale / financing of new car on a lease
Phase 2: ‘approved used’ sale profit once return ed / traded in
Phase 3: profits from selling exclusive high cost parts and economically write off older cars
Throughout the lifecycle determine prices and depreciation though finance (and not through market competition).
The holy grail will be for a car to be available to own / use only as long as its warranty meaning it never leaves the original manufacturer’s network. The marketing of this shortened lifecycle will be to convince you of the new car’s improved eco credentials but no one talks about the environmental impact of producing the new car...
The biggest positive impact on the environment a consumer can have is to reduce consumption ergo reduce the pollution caused by production. Yet we get sucked into believing that buying a new marginally more fuel efficient car is saving the planet and then replace it every three years!
To offset the pollution created from producing a new car can take between 30,000 and 60,000.
Thank God for (largely pointless) cylinder deactivation and (equally pointless) mild hybrids that give the illusion of eco credentials when just making the car blew a hole in the ozone layer, melted a kilometre of ice cap and killed a family of polar bears...
Stay woke people the aliens are coming.
Edited by sasha320 on Saturday 1st August 07:26
sasha320 said:
Everyone should wake up to the fact that traditional ICE car manufacturers have been doing this for years. They make the running of older cars economically unviable by making exclusive parts that are excessively priced.
Has anyone noticed the massive decline in the availability of ‘pattern’ parts to keep older cars on the road?
The car manufacturers are trying to close the loop on car ownership by having control over every car they produce from cradle to grave.
Phase 1: initial profit from the sale / financing of new car on a lease
Phase 2: ‘approved used’ sale profit once return ed / traded in
Phase 3: profits from selling exclusive high cost parts and economically write off older cars
Throughout the lifecycle determine prices and depreciation though finance (and not through market competition).
The holy grail will be for a car to be available to own / use only as long as its warranty meaning it never leaves the original manufacturer’s network.
?Has anyone noticed the massive decline in the availability of ‘pattern’ parts to keep older cars on the road?
The car manufacturers are trying to close the loop on car ownership by having control over every car they produce from cradle to grave.
Phase 1: initial profit from the sale / financing of new car on a lease
Phase 2: ‘approved used’ sale profit once return ed / traded in
Phase 3: profits from selling exclusive high cost parts and economically write off older cars
Throughout the lifecycle determine prices and depreciation though finance (and not through market competition).
The holy grail will be for a car to be available to own / use only as long as its warranty meaning it never leaves the original manufacturer’s network.
Lots of the manufacturers run lower-priced sub-brand parts operations catering to older cars.
SpeckledJim said:
?
Lots of the manufacturers run lower-priced sub-brand parts operations catering to older cars.
I agree with all of your post except for one word. I don’t think it is ‘lots’. I think some manufacturers make some parts available for ultra popular cars e.g., Golfs and 3 Series.Lots of the manufacturers run lower-priced sub-brand parts operations catering to older cars.
Try buying a non-consumable electrical part or engine part for anything else.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff